english_heritage_ref 468884. The URL could go to a text-based article or images.

key:english_heritage_ref isn't defined. The community may have minted their own key (english_heritage_number, for example). Some editing tool will autosuggest existing keys, but not all, and users can ignore them.

Do include the URL to a website, but not necessarily structured data.

Store wikidata value

key:wikidata isn't documented. It's still new, and the community hasn't agreed that it should be used. Small community and slow consensus process.

store reference terms to build a wikipedia page, but don't explicitly build it because

it's long,

b) there are more than one wikipedia URL per article (http, https, etc.)

People are reluctant; they don't understand why they should. Volunteers think entering the number into a table is enough. We could run a script to replace the data with a URL, or we could make the fact that the data is part of a URL more clear on the (human readable) wiki.)

Subkeys: wikipedia:architect. or wikidata:architect.

Community conflicts: members in different parts of the world will mint different terms meaning the same thing. They slowly come together and conflict.

Another question was raised if machine readable meant not “natural language” using PDF as an example.

PDF on its own is only usable by humans. if your pdf include tables, you could use metadata to give provide explanation about the table. One recommendation was that when you scrape pdf it should have metadata

The following use case was identified:

User A publishes a PDF file. User B reads the PDF file over the next 3 weeks and decides to create a table based on the PDF. You need metadata to refer back to the original source that you generated the table from.

From the CSVW Working Group If User B page scrapes a table from the PDF file the PDF file is considered as a external source such as a database. The concern of the CSVW working group is the form that it is parsed and how the resulting tabular data is organized. From the Data Activity perspective this represents an interesting use case because DWBP Working Group could represent the best practices for using metadata to associate the derived table with the original PDF file.

Discussion on metadata continued about the value of metadata being understood, described, and well defined.

Dublin core was as an example of being understood by some users and difficult for others. Having sufficient documentation makes metadata more understandable by intended audiences.